> That sounds reasonable on the surface, but think it through. That
> same principle can be applied to every action in our lives. If the
> government can force us to do things "for our own good" on the
> grounds that the government must care for us if we get hurt, then we
> have lost all our freedom. We could soon find ourselves in a police
> state the likes of which the world has never seen.
>
> I *ALWAYS* wear a seal belt when I drive, no exceptions -- but I
> oppose seat belt laws. I always wore a helment when riding a
> motorcycle but I oppose helmet laws.
>
>
Joe,
Do you stay within the speed limit, but oppose speed limit
laws?
I agree that government protecting us from ourselves is
wrong on the grounds of costs incurred. I feel that it is
right on the grounds of irrefutable scientific evidence
of lives saved. Just think of it as part of the evolutionary
process.
You know, I didn't feel as strongly about this until about
three years ago. I won't go into grisly details, but I will
relate the helmet issue to endurance riding, which hasn't
been done much in this thread. Imagine being taken off your
horse at a gallop by a large tree, then falling backwards on
your head. It was described as looking like what always
happens to Wily Coyote. New nose required, but brain intact.
Helmet was on and person loved by many is still with us.
I think that helmet laws are compassionate. I don't chafe
under them.
I've been at many FEI rides, where helmets are required for all,
but have heard no opposition to the rule. In this issue of
EN you can find thinly veiled fear/opposition to possible
helmet requirements at dual sponsored AERC/FEI rides.
Irregardless of what Teddy might have said in a post that
I might have deleted, I'm opposed to any legislation
against her, unless it would be to keep her posts to
under 10 per day. Those who know her, know she has a big
heart and it's in the right place.
Pete LaBerge